NJ.com reports on another impressive moment in the political life of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

LOS ANGELES — True to his tough-guy persona, Gov. Chris Christie mixed it up today with a political naysayer, who heckled California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman at a political rally.

Christie was concluding a town hall meeting with Whitman when an angry audience member criticized her for not taking questions.

“What are you hiding?” shouted Ed Buck, in jeans and a light shirt in the front row of the 400-person event. “You’re looking like Arnold in a dress,” he said in a reference to outgoing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Before Whitman could respond, Christie stepped down from the stage and got in Buck’s face.

“Hey, listen. You know what. You want to yell, yell at me,” Christie said, shutting down Buck as Christie’s bodyguards calmly but quickly approached the two men. “It’s people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you who are dividing this country. We’re here to bring this country together.”

I’m sure some of the more radical liberal feminists in California probably flipped out for a couple of reasons when they heard the news of Christie’s stepping in on behalf of Whitman: 1) They hate Whitman and Christie and likely would have rather the heckler just went on and on, and 2) the thought of a man stepping in to defend a woman is deeply offensive to uber-left wing women who believe doing so is an “insult” to independent women worldwide because – in the minds of liberal feminists, anyway – a chivalrous man is a “dominant” type who believes women should sit back, be “subservient,” and let the man fight all of her battles. Of course, in reality that is NOT in any way what chivalrous men are really all about, but in the warped minds of militant feministas, especially in California, a man stepping in to speak on behalf of a woman is considered no different from a man slapping a woman.

Christie is a politically incorrect man who who, thankfully, says what’s on his mind regardless of what the political consequences may be. Not only that, but in a time where so many politicos in this country are unwilling to take a stand and instead prefer to straddle the fence, he seems to have a good sense of what’s right and what’s wrong and he acts accordingly, in spite of naysayers. Whether or not Whitman needed “rescuing” here is a debate others can have. But I am going on record to say that I appreciated him acting on his instincts, and for the reminder that there are indeed still gentlemen left in politics.

In recent months, I’ve focused on Mexico and the cartel-related violence there, which directly relates to the security of our own southern border and that of the people who live in the area. Occasionally, I’ve been accused of demonizing Mexico and Mexicans by grossly exaggerating the problem. Perhaps, though I don’t believe so. But, if I am guilty of scaremongering, so is Baylor University:

Baylor has suspended every program in Mexico, with the exception of the law school in Guadalajara, until the conditions change, said Dr. Michael Morrison, director of the Center for International Education. Guadalajara has not experienced the violence seen along the northern border of Mexico and in Monterrey.

More than 28,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched a military offensive against drug traffickers in late 2006.

Two Baylor students studied in Monterrey in the spring. Following an outbreak of violence outside the gates of Monterrey Tech, Baylor arranged for one student to return immediately and worked with the other student and the student’s parents to determine that the student would remain for the last few weeks to finish the Monterrey Tech program.

“We are not currently taking students on that program, as Monterrey is one of the most dangerous places,” Morrison said.

Dr. Sijefredo Loa, associate professor of Spanish, directed the last Baylor in Mexico program to Xalapa, Veracruz, in June 2009.

“There are a few facts that are very alarming,” Loa said. “The road blocks the cartels have set up, for instance. They’re stopping tourists with vans and buses because they want to check the traffic. So this has alarmed and scared a lot of people.”

I can see why.

To borrow a phrase from our President, let me be clear: I do not believe Mexico is a failed state or likely to fail in the near future; Colombia, for example survived far worse and came through it. However, I think those who dismiss the discussion of Mexico’s security problems as hysteria or (you guessed it) racism are burying their heads in the sand to avoid seeing a very real, very serious problem that has serious implications for our own security.

Same with those who think the whole problem could be solved with a libertarian-style legalization of the drug trade: these are not simple businessmen fighting for the right to pursue a trade. The cartels are criminal-terrorist enterprises with much in common with our jihadist enemies (perhaps even allying), such as perceiving any accommodation as weakness. Legalizing their poisonous trade wouldn’t make honest merchants of them; rather, they would be like Edward G. Robinson’s “Johnny Rocco,” in Key Largo:

RELATED: The El Paso Times reports that Juarez’s largest newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, has asked for a truce with the cartels after the assassination of its second journalist in two years. I wrote about the situation in Monterrey yesterday.

Been a hectic day so far for the Sistah, and will be the same once I get back from lunch. Probably won’t be able to check back in until much later this afternoon. Can’t wait to write about the news of Axelturf and Rahmbo preparing to exit this administration stage left.